"Congressman Wants To Stop The Feds From Giving Cities Like Ferguson Military Weapons For Free

Enraged by scenes from Ferguson, Missouri that many have analogized to a war zone, a member of Congress said Thursday he will propose a bill to roll back the militarization of U.S. police forces. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) tweeted about his proposal after days of images of local police forces in military garb, driving around in tanks, and carrying assault rifles. These photographs and stories of rampant tear gassing, rubber bullets, and other SWAT team tactics have drawn heightened focus to a trend of militarization of U.S. police forces.

Both the excess of military equipment no longer being used for combat, and the move toward a “War” on drugs over the last several decades have resulted in police departments with destructive and combative tools at their disposal.

The proposed “Stop Militarization Enforcement Act” to stop the federal government from transferring military equipment to federal and state agencies. Increasingly, the federal government has been giving its equipment away as part of several grant programs, one of which is operated through the Department of Defense. In the mid-1990s, the National Defense Authorization Act authorized transfer of these weapons to localities for “counterdrug activities.” A more recent version of the 1033 Program even gives the equipment to agencies for free so long as they use it within a year — providing further incentive for officers doing low-level police work to use these weapons for any reason.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Kara Dansky, the lead author of an ACLU report on these programs and their connection to SWAT raids, told the New Yorker that departments with these weapons are more likely to use them. “If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” she said. “When the police have these weapons, they’re more likely to use them.”

Johnson said Thursday that he plans to introduce his bill next month, according to BuzzFeed, and sent a letter to Congress calling for lawmakers to “revisit a militarized America.” But Johnson has been plugging the idea at least as far back in March, when he co-wrote in an op-ed with Michael Shank announcing his plans, “Something potentially sinister is happening across America, and we should stop and take notice before it changes the character of our country forever.”

The menacing police presence in Ferguson is the most prominent display of the program’s adverse consequences, but it is far from the first one. The ACLU’s report documented the widespread use of SWAT teams — once considered “paramilitaristic” squads reserved for the most violent situations. Now, the ACLU found, some 79 percent of the 800 SWAT raids examined by the ACLU in 20 states were for for the purpose of searching someone’s home — usually for drugs. Only 7 percent of SWAT deployments were for serious situations like hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.” During these drug searches, at least 10 officers often piled into armored personnel carriers,” Dansky wrote in a blog post on the report. “They forced their way into people’s homes using military equipment like battering rams 60 percent of the time. And they were 14 times more likely to deploy flashbang grenades than during SWAT raids for other purposes.”

SWAT teams that aggressively raid individuals’ homes on suspicion of drugs have thrown a grenade into a toddler’s crib and left a hole in his chest, killed a grandfather of 12 while he was watching a baseball game, and mistakenly shot and killed a seven-year-old who was sleeping on the couch, according to stories compiled by the ACLU.

Programs like 1033 were key to this SWAT team evolution. And as explained in the proposed bill, under the 1033 program, “approximately 12,000 police organizations across the country were able to procure nearly $500 million worth of excess military merchandise including firearms, computers, helicopters, clothing, and other products, at no charge during fiscal year 2011 alone” and that “more than $4 million worth of weapons and equipment have been transferred to police organizations in all 50 states and four territories through the program.” In 2012, the program instituted a moratorium on weapons transfers after reports of missing weapons and inappropriate transfers. But in 2013, the bill notes, the program was quietly revived without any improvements.

Johnson’s op-ed said of the 1033 program, “The program currently lacks serious oversight and accountability, and it needs some parameters put in place to define what is appropriate. The legislation will ban MRAPs, other armored personnel carriers, drones, assault weapons and aircraft. Finally, the legislation will ensure that the Department of Defense undertakes an annual accounting of what’s been transferred, by whom and to whom to prevent military items from being auctioned on eBay or sold to friends.

glassman

posted August 16, 201414:31
some of us have been saying this for years ray...

what's really buggin me about this Ferguson MO issue is where are the tea party loudmouths? they are the ones who jumped up to try to capture votes from people like me and the peopel like me who find the Dept of homeland security to be just a liitle too much like gestapo tactics...

just a couple months ago the issue was over a rancher who was probably illegally grazing cattle on Fedral land but had been doing it since before it was illegal and so shuld have been"grandfathered in"... those folks were not peaceful, but the they share the same questions about Government in the US, how much "militarisation" of our Police is acceptable?

one more thought to share? Obama and most of the Liberals support the militarization of the police force... The Clinton Gun ban was in fact just one small part of a law Enforcemnt Bill that beefed up the miliary type ability of the cops nationwide...

Pagan

posted August 16, 201414:36

quote:Originally posted by glassman: some of us have been saying this for years ray...

what's really buggin me about this Ferguson MO issue is where are the tea party loudmouths? they are the ones who jumped up to try to capture votes from people like me and the peopel like me who find the Dept of homeland security to be just a liitle too much like gestapo tactics...

just a couple months ago the issue was over a rancher who was probably illegally grazing cattle on Fedral land but had been doing it since before it was illegal and so shuld have been"grandfathered in"... those folks were not peaceful, but the they share the same questions about Government in the US, how much "militarisation" of our Police is acceptable?

one more thought to share? Obama and most of the Liberals support the militarization of the police force... The Clinton Gun ban was in fact just one small part of a law Enforcemnt Bill that beefed up the miliary type ability of the cops nationwide...

I see you singled out liberals in your post. Do you not think the NRA & GOP support militarization of the police?

glassman

posted August 16, 201414:54
Pagan, i singled out the so-calld libertarian tea partiers who are being silent right now first didn't i?...

the right to peacefully assemble has been stomped into the ground by both the GOP (NYC arrested several thousand during hteir convention) and the Democrats.

it is time for new Party in this country... you have to admit it would be odd to see Rand Paul and Sarah palin out there marching in Ferguson, but if they truly beleived what they have been saying? they would out there.. they are absent.. as usual... they are not honest people.

glassman

posted August 16, 201415:08
I am not a member of the NRA, but i'm pretty sure they do not support the militarisaion of the police.

the GOP does support it...both parties do and the proof is that the police have become highly miltiarised

raybond

posted August 16, 201415:25
Would you call Ronald Regan a liberal? He is the one that started this program of free weapons to the police forces of this country.

Pagan

posted August 16, 201415:29
Guess I misread your comment.

"Obama and most of the Liberals support the militarization of the police force."

But...I'm not as sharp as you apparently.

raybond

posted August 16, 201415:31
Icon 1 posted 16-08-2014 14:31 Profile for glassman Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote some of us have been saying this for years ray...

what's really buggin me about this Ferguson MO issue is where are the tea party loudmouths? they are the ones who jumped up to try to capture votes from people like me and the peopel like me who find the Dept of homeland security to be just a liitle too much like gestapo tactics...

just a couple months ago the issue was over a rancher who was probably illegally grazing cattle on Fedral land but had been doing it since before it was illegal and so shuld have been"grandfathered in"... those folks were not peaceful, but the they share the same questions about Government in the US, how much "militarisation" of our Police is acceptable?

one more thought to share? Obama and most of the Liberals support the militarization of the police force... The Clinton Gun ban was in fact just one small part of a law Enforcemnt Bill that beefed up the miliary type ability of the cops nationwide...-------------------------------------------------

What an example Bundy,good god, what a free loading pig.

Grand fathered in my ass. He should be brought in wearing chains.

glassman

posted August 16, 201416:02
chians? feeloader? LOL ray.... you prove my point about liberals... the good news is that Obama and Holder don't agree with you, i have no doubt the Clintons would have had him and family shot down like at Ruby Ridge and Wacko.. good thing Obama beat them

i don't think this is a Liberal/Conservative issue.. liberals can be divided itnot two groups. the Elitists and the poor... you ray are obviously an elitist.Bundy and his family and many many others were grazing cattle out there for decades... the Big Cattle Feedlot types are behind the eradication of the small outfits. and the elitist Liberals support that..

waht i find so damn irritating is that T-Partyiers pretendd to be against all that but they happend to get a large chunk of the ir funding from very BIG Business too...Koch bros? BIG biz..

glassman

posted August 16, 201416:16
there are number of website now dedicated to exposing daily abuse of power by law enfocemrnt all over the USA... They collect news articles about abusive police actions perpetrated on all classes of people and races of peopel that happen every single day in the US..

considering we have over 300 million people living here from nearly every ethnic and religious background on the face of the earth, the police do not do a terrible job as a whole... however, and this is the most important issue IMO , you cannot give them a free pass whne they do get abusive. NONE! becuase as happens with all human endeavour, you give an inch and they'll take a mile...

people who protest and assemble to protest should never be confused with the agitators who ALWAYS shhhow up when things get interesting. We should all be accountable, cops politicians and citizens... but you cannot ban protesting becuase a few people want to turn it itno a riot.

glassman

posted August 16, 201417:05
midnite curfew in Ferguson... hmm.......

raybond

posted August 16, 201417:14
Bundy is breaking the law for his own selfish reasons mainly he is a free loader. He has been to court and he lost. You prove my point about self serving wishy washies. who wants to obey only the laws that financially or socially work for them. In other words you yourself would make a good Bundy.

As far as protesting goes who brought that up but you. I feel that is an American right. You would take that right away from people. People like you are very quick to take other peoples freedoms away.

glassman

posted August 16, 201417:51
ray, Bundy is a nut, no doubt about it, but to my knowledge he was never clapped in chains, and didn't deserve to be.

the govt did overreact to him and put him in the spotlight.. the govt did back down once the spotlight was on them, as should be. the fact that noone was killed over th ewhole incident is probably as much luck as anything... and that Govt a tthe time is Holder adn Obama, who i do beleive are actually sensitive to Constitutional questions unlike the Clintons.. they may not be as effective or efficiant, but they have not overrun their constituents like the Clintons did.

the Bundy followers were prepared to die and some did in a differnt incident... just rember that the Founders of the USA were considered freeloaders by the British Crown and the Crown felt the same way as you do about Bundy...

as to me taking rights away from people? you misread something... i support the right to portest, and assemble (even Labor Unions) peacably and have made no statement contrary to that notion. I support the right to protest in Ferguson, but there are agitators there who are ruining it for everyone, i don't beleive those agitators care one way or the other about Justice like you or i do..

i consider myself a Libertarian, but i recognise that we do need government and that the Govt should be held accountable. I am not an Anarchist like some people ho call themselves Libertarians are...

almost every top 50 Corp in the US pays almost no taxes, i don't that as any different to the type of freeloading that Bundy was doing.. If Bundy had gone to the trouble of actaully hiring alawyer? he might have won, but all legal cases are hard to predict...

raybond

posted August 17, 201400:49
never said bundy was clapped in chains I said I would have had him clapped in chains and drug back.And as for the hicks that wanted to die at bundys place I would have accommodated them.